Caught the replay. Entertaining game. Congrats to Seattle for taking out the first championship. I would say all things considered the first year of MLR can be considered a far bigger success than what PRO delivered. Still some work to do with some of the teams but overall a solid foundation has been laid. Now it's about cementing things over the coming years. We'll have NY, Ontario and probably Dallas next year so there will be 5 games per week next year. Exciting times.

thatrugbyguy wrote:Caught the replay. Entertaining game. Congrats to Seattle for taking out the first championship. I would say all things considered the first year of MLR can be considered a far bigger success than what PRO delivered. Still some work to do with some of the teams but overall a solid foundation has been laid. Now it's about cementing things over the coming years. We'll have NY, Ontario and probably Dallas next year so there will be 5 games per week next year. Exciting times.

LA has already confirmed tgey are in for next season. So it'll be NY, LA and hopefully one of Ontario or Dallas. More than likely Ontario. I'll believe it when I see it with Dallas.

thatrugbyguy wrote:Caught the replay. Entertaining game. Congrats to Seattle for taking out the first championship. I would say all things considered the first year of MLR can be considered a far bigger success than what PRO delivered. Still some work to do with some of the teams but overall a solid foundation has been laid. Now it's about cementing things over the coming years. We'll have NY, Ontario and probably Dallas next year so there will be 5 games per week next year. Exciting times.

Even with knowing that PRO flopped after 1 year, MLR is significantly more successful. PRO was stale and lifeless but MLR has energy and meaning to it.

thatrugbyguy wrote:Caught the replay. Entertaining game. Congrats to Seattle for taking out the first championship. I would say all things considered the first year of MLR can be considered a far bigger success than what PRO delivered. Still some work to do with some of the teams but overall a solid foundation has been laid. Now it's about cementing things over the coming years. We'll have NY, Ontario and probably Dallas next year so there will be 5 games per week next year. Exciting times.

Even with knowing that PRO flopped after 1 year, MLR is significantly more successful. PRO was stale and lifeless but MLR has energy and meaning to it.

Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time PRO was exciting considering it was the first attempt at professional rugby in the US. There were a lot of problems, but fundamentally if Doug had funded things better or let interested investors join, it might still be around and we wouldnt be talking about it like a deadbeat uncle. Coverage was inconsistent but I remember being excited to watch Ohio v Denver. And although the quality of players was probably more inconsistent, it was still a good step up from D1 club rugby.

In retrospect, looking unemotionally at the teams and games (ignoring the whole non payment issue and acrimony that followed), they did a good job pushing for parity and setting up in a matter of months but without real local buy in and ownership in each city, team's did not have the same chemistry or depth of support.

You can see now, watching MLR, how a single entity league makes the most sense when there is still a local owner and local front office making decisions that are right for each city.

I could see why it would be an issue. From my understanding part of the licensing agreement for Super League teams is that they have to also be developing a nursery for rugby league talent, and the Wolfpack obviously don't have much to work with in that department. It essentially means that if you play in Super League you have to be contributing to the pool of players. I would hazard a guess that the RFL didn't anticipate the Wolfpack being stacked with professional talent and rising this quickly through the divisions. I could see why this would be an issue as it would mean the Wolfpack wouldn't be developing players for other teams to potentially sign up, but I'm surprised it was something that wasn't already brought up and discussed prior to the team forming. A change in code would be a pretty drastic move, I don't think anything like that has happened since 1895, at least not in the professional era.

RFL pretty much have final say as to whether teams get promoted or not, so I doubt they'll get sued. It's not automatic like in soccer. Travel has probably got something to do with it also. Wolfpack would have to play large chunks of the season away from home.

thatrugbyguy wrote:RFL pretty much have final say as to whether teams get promoted or not, so I doubt they'll get sued. It's not automatic like in soccer. Travel has probably got something to do with it also. Wolfpack would have to play large chunks of the season away from home.

It could also come down the SL teams not wanting to cover their own travel costs. The Wolfpack have had to cover the costs of their current competitors but they are all at a different level than the SL clubs in terms of financing. They may not want to continue that arrangement much longer and I cannot the SL clubs being happy to dip into their pockets.

There could also be as you have suggested that the RFL didn't see them actually pushing for a place and the big table. More just some good publicity for the code in its markets.

TheStroBro wrote:Basically it would be expensive...I'm sure the RFL would sue them into the ground...also, they'd need an entirely different player group.

Based on what could they potentially sue them?

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.